All the people were at strife; <\/B>quarrelling one with another, as the authors or abettors of this shameful and cursed rebellion, discoursing privately and publicly of Davids high merits, which God, being now reconciled to David, brings afresh to their memories, and reneweth the sense of their obligations to their king, which they had lately shaken off. Thus the crowns of kings sit faster or looser upon their heads, as God is pleased to dispose of the thoughts and hearts of their people, which he can turn in an instant which way he will. <\/P>
Now he is fled out of the land for Absalom:<\/B> now we come to reflect upon our own actions, we are sensible of our folly and unworthiness in adhering to Absalom, and thereby forcing David to flee out of the land of Canaan to the parts beyond Jordan for his security. <\/P> <\/p>\nFuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
9-11. all the people were at strifethroughout all the tribes of Israel<\/B>The kingdom was completelydisorganized. The sentiments of three different parties arerepresented in 2Sa 19:9<\/span>; 2Sa 19:10<\/span>:the royalists, the adherents of Absalom who had been very numerous,and those who were indifferent to the Davidic dynasty. In thesecircumstances the king was right in not hastening back, as aconqueror, to reascend his throne. A re-election was, in somemeasure, necessary. He remained for some time on the other side ofJordan, in expectation of being invited back. That invitation wasgiven without, however, the concurrence of Judah. David, disappointedand vexed by his own tribe’s apparent lukewarmness, despatched thetwo high priests to rouse the Judahites to take a prominent interestin his cause. It was the act of a skilful politician. Hebron havingbeen the seat of the rebellion, it was graceful on his part toencourage their return to allegiance and duty; it was an appeal totheir honor not to be the last of the tribes. But this separatemessage, and the preference given to them, occasioned an outburst ofjealousy among the other tribes that was nearly followed by fatalconsequences [see 2Sa19:40-43<\/span>].<\/P><\/p>\n And all the people were at strife through all the tribes of Israel<\/strong>,…. Excepting the tribe of Judah; they blamed and reproved one another for taking part with Absalom in the rebellion, and especially for their coldness and backwardness in bringing back David to Jerusalem:<\/p>\n saying, the king saved us out of the hand of our enemies<\/strong>; exposed his life to danger, fought our battles for us, and gained us victory over our enemies, and saved us from them, especially those next mentioned:<\/p>\n and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines<\/strong>; in the times of Saul, and since; which were benefits which ought to have endeared him to them, and were aggravations of the crime of those who had been concerned in the late rebellion; and were such as ought not to be buried in oblivion, and were proper arguments to engage them to return to their allegiance to him, and abide by it:<\/p>\n and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom<\/strong>; being obliged to quit Jerusalem, and the land of Judea on this side Jordan, and to pass that river; not from a spirit of cowardice, but from tenderness to his son, he did not choose to fight against; and from a concern for his metropolis Jerusalem, lest that should be hurt, as well as for the safety of his person.<\/p>\n Preliminaries to the return of David to Jerusalem.<\/em> – 2Sa 19:9<\/span>, 2Sa 19:10<\/span>. As the rebellion was entirely crushed by Absalom’s death, and the dispersion of his followers to their respective homes, there arose a movement among all the tribes in favour of David. “All the people were disputing ( , casting reproaches at one another) in all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king has saved us out of the hand of our enemies, … and now he is fled out of the land before Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle; and now why do ye keep still, to bring back the king?” This movement arose from the consciousness of having done an injustice to the king, in rising up in support of Absalom. <\/p>\n David’s Return to the Jordan.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1023.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 9 And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom. 10 And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now therefore why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back? 11 And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even<\/I> to his house. 12 Ye are<\/I> my brethren, ye are<\/I> my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king? 13 And say ye to Amasa, Art<\/I> thou not of my bone, and of my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab. 14 And he bowed the heart of all the men of Judah, even as the heart of<\/I> one man; so that they sent this word<\/I> unto the king, Return thou, and all thy servants. 15 So the king returned, and came to Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to conduct the king over Jordan.<\/P> It is strange that David did not immediately upon the defeat and dispersion of Absalom’s forces march with all expedition back to Jerusalem, to regain the possession of his capital city, while the rebels were in confusion and before they could rally again. What occasion was there to bring him back? Could not he himself go back with the victorious army he had with him in Gilead? He could, no doubt; but, 1. He would go back as a prince, with the consent and unanimous approbation of the people, and not as a conqueror forcing his way: he would restore their liberties, and not take occasion to seize them, or encroach upon them. 2. He would go back in peace and safety, and be sure that he should meet with no difficulty or opposition in his return, and therefore would be satisfied that the people were well-affected to have him before he would stir. 3. He would go back in honour, and like himself, and therefore would go back, not at the head of his forces, but in the arms of his subjects; for the prince that has wisdom and goodness enough to make himself his people’s darling, without doubt, looks greater and makes a much better figure than the prince that has strength enough to make himself his people’s terror. It is resolved therefore that David must be brought back to Jerusalem his own city, and his own house there, with some ceremony, and here we have that matter concerted.<\/P> I. The men of Israel (that is, the ten tribes) were the first that talked of it, 2Sa 19:9<\/span>; 2Sa 19:10<\/span>. The people were at strife about it; it was the great subject of discourse and dispute throughout all the country. Some perhaps opposed it: “Let him either come back himself or stay where he is;” others appeared zealous for it, and reasoned as follows here, to further the design, 1. That David had formerly helped them, had fought their battles, subdued their enemies, and done them much service, and therefore it was a shame that he should continue banished from their country who had been so great a benefactor to it. Note, Good services done to the public, though they may be forgotten for a while, yet will be remembered again when men come to their right minds. 2. That Absalom had now disappointed them. “We were foolishly sick of the cedar, and chose the branch to reign over us; but we have had enough of him: he is consumed, and we narrowly escaped being consumed with him. Let us therefore return to our allegiance, and think of bringing the king back.” Perhaps this was all the strife among them, not a dispute whether the king should be brought back or no (all agreed it was to be done), but whose fault is was that it was not done. As is usual in such cases, every one justified himself and blamed his neighbour. The people laid the fault on the elders, and the elders on the people, and one tribe upon another. Mutual excitements to the doing of a good work are laudable, but not mutual accusations for the not doing of it; for usually when public services are neglected all sides must share in the blame; every one might do more than he does, in the reformation of manners, the healing of divisions, and the like.<\/P> II. The men of Judah, by David’s contrivance, were the first that did it. It is strange that they, being David’s own tribe, were not so forward as the rest. David had intelligence of the good disposition of all the rest towards him, but nothing from Judah, though he had always been particularly careful of them. But we do not always find the most kindness from those from whom we have most reason to expect it. Yet David would not return till he knew the sense of his own tribe. Judah was his lawgiver,<\/I> Ps. lx. 7<\/I><\/span>. That his way home might be the more clear, 1. He employed Zadok and Abiathar, the two chief priests, to treat with the elders of Judah, and to excite them to give the king an invitation back to his house, even to his house, which was the glory of their tribe, 2Sa 19:11<\/span>; 2Sa 19:12<\/span>. No men more proper to negociate this affair than the two priests, who were firm to David’s interest, were prudent men, and had great influence with the people. Perhaps the men of Judah were remiss and careless, and did it not, because nobody put them on to do it, and then it was proper to stir them up to it. Many will follow in a good work who will not lead: it is a pity that they should continue idle for want of being spoken to. Or perhaps they were so sensible of the greatness of the provocation they had given to David, by joining with Absalom, that they were afraid to bring him back, despairing of his favour; he therefore warrants his agents to assure them of it, with this reason: “You are my brethren, my bone and my flesh,<\/I> and therefore I cannot be severe with you.” The Son of David has been pleased to call us brethren, his bone and his flesh,<\/I> which encourages us to hope that we shall find favour with him. Or perhaps they were willing to see what the rest of the tribes would do before they stirred, with which they are here upbraided: “The speech of all Israel has come to the king to invite him back, and shall Judah be the last, that should have been the first? Where is now the celebrated bravery of that royal tribe? Where is its loyalty?” Note, We should be stirred up to that which is great and good by the examples both of our ancestors and of our neighbours, and by the consideration of our rank. Let not the first in dignity be last in duty. 2. He particularly courted into his interest Amasa, who had been Absalom’s general, but was his own nephew as well as Joab, v.<\/I><\/span> 13<\/span>. He owns him for his kinsman, and promises him that, if he will appear for him now, he will make him captain-general of all his forces in the room of Joab, will not only pardon him (which, it may be, Amasa questioned), but prefer him. Sometimes there is nothing lost in purchasing the friendship of one that has been an enemy. Amasa’s interest might do David good service at this juncture. But, if David did wisely for himself in designating Amasa for this post (Joab having now grown intolerably haughty), he did not do kindly by Amasa in letting his design be known, for it occasioned his death by Joab’s hand, ch.<\/I><\/span> xx. 10<\/span>. 3. The point was hereby gained. He bowed the heart of the men of Judah to pass a vote, nemine contradicente–unanimously,<\/I> for the recall of the king, v.<\/I><\/span> 14<\/span>. God’s providence, by the priests’ persuasions and Amasa’s interest, brought them to this resolve. David stirred not till he received this invitation, and then he came as far back as Jordan, at which river they were to meet him, v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>. Our Lord Jesus will rule in those that invite him to the throne in their hearts and not till he be invited. He first bows the heart and makes it willing in the day of his power, and then rules in the midst of his enemies,<\/I>Psa 110:2<\/span>; Psa 110:3<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n The Return to the Jordan. 2Sa. 19:9-15<\/span><\/p>\n 9 And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom. 12 Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king?<\/p>\n 13 And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab.<\/p>\n 14 And he bowed the heart of all the men of Judah, even as the heart of one man; so that they sent this word unto the king, Return thou, and all thy servants.<\/p>\n 15 So the king returned, and came to Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to conduct the king over Jordan.<\/p>\n 7.<\/p>\n What was the popular opinion among the people? 2Sa. 19:9-10<\/span><\/p>\n The people of Israel were confused and their loyalties were divided. They knew that David had saved them out of the hands of their enemiesthe Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, Syrians, and Philistines. They knew that he was in exile, having been driven out of his kingdom by his own son, but Absalom, whom they had anointed to be their king, was dead. Their line of reasoning led them to the place where the majority of them were agitating for bringing David back to rule in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n 8.<\/p>\n Why did David summon Judah? 2Sa. 19:11<\/span><\/p>\n David represented the people of Judah as being the last to come back under his banner. They would have been last if they had not hastened to come in before Israel found their way back. Amasa was mentioned as a diplomatic gesture. This would flatter Amasa and secure his allegiance to David. David wanted Amasa, since he was a member of the tribe of Judah and had been Absaloms commander. Judah responded to Davids invitation and met him at Gilgal, a convenient, sacred place located west of the Jordan.<\/p>\n 9.<\/p>\n Why the pledge to Amasa? 2Sa. 19:13<\/span><\/p>\n David did another unaccountable and unjustifiable thing in appointing Amasa commander-in-chief of the army in the place of Joab (2Sa. 19:13<\/span>). One can understand his exasperation with the latter for his deliberate disobedience in the death of Absalom, and for the insulting language he used to the king. But, for all that, to make the former rebel chief to be the head of the army, superseding the loyal and victorious commander who had saved the kings throne for him was really too much; and one wonders where Davids common sense had gone. We can imagine the fierce and sullen resentment of Joabs veterans when they heard the news. It is a wonder that there was not an outbreak of rebellion.<\/p>\n (9) The king saved us.<\/strong>With the collapse of the rebellion the accompanying infatuation passed away, and the people began to remember how much they owed to David. There seems to have been a general disposition among the people to return to their allegiance, yet the movement was without organisation or leadership.<\/p>\n RIVALRY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND JUDAH OVER DAVID’S RETURN, 2Sa 19:9-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n “Absalom is dead. David is victorious. What more has the king to do but to cross the Jordan, march to Jerusalem, and take possession of his throne! This had been ill speed it had been too abrupt. David is much to be commended for the delicacy with which he acted. Seeing that the defection of the people and the preference of Absalom had been so general among the tribes west of the Jordan, he feared even the appearance of forcing himself upon them, or seeming to recover possession of his throne as a conqueror. He therefore tarried beyond the river, waiting to be invited back. There was some delay in giving this invitation; perhaps because the king’s wish and his motive in delaying to move westward were not at first understood.” Kitto.<\/p>\n 9<\/strong>. <\/strong> Were at strife <\/strong> , Were casting reproaches at one another. <\/em> They felt that in following Absalom they had been guilty of insurrection against the king, and were under obligations to secure his return from Mahanaim. From 2Sa 19:11<\/span> we learn that their words were reported to David.<\/p>\n (9) And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom. (10) And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now therefore why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back? (11) And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house. (12) Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I think it is very evident from this strife among the tribes of Israel, that the rebellion by Absalom was deeply laid, and very strong and formidable; for we see, even after such a victory as David’s army had obtained, his way to Jerusalem needed opening by favour. But, Reader! is there not spiritual instruction for you and me in this place? Did David send to the elders of Judah through the priests, that an invitation might be made him to return: and doth it not bring to our recollection how GOD the FATHER everlastingly speaking to us, through him who is an everlasting Priest upon his throne, and Intercessor, that we may ask our GOD to come and make his abode with us? Doth not our JESUS, the Son of David, graciously condescend to call us his brethren, his flesh, and his bones; and doth he not say, Have I been a wilderness to my people, that they say, We will come no more to thee? Jer 2:31<\/span> .<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:9 And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom.<\/p>\n Ver. 9. And all the people were at strife.<\/strong> ] Hereby it appeareth that David was not readmitted without some dispute, some great thoughts of heart: the devil doubtless stickled hard to have hindered it. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Saying, The king saved us.<\/strong> ] The prevailing and better part said so.<\/p>\n Bringing the King Back <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:9-20<\/p>\n Joabs remonstrance, though expressed in rough and uncourteous phrase, was perfectly just. The royal troops, instead of being welcomed with acclamation, had slunk into the city, as if defeated, immediate steps must be taken to counteract their depression. Private grief must yield to public interests.<\/p>\n The revulsion of loyalty to David began with the ten tribes; but the concurrence of Judah was essential, and it was secured by the mission of the two priests and by the overtures of Amasa. These turned the scale, and Judah welcomed the king with joy, 2Sa 19:14. What a glimpse all this gives of the change that will be wrought when our Lord comes again-and apparently His advent is very nigh! Previous verdicts will be reversed. Shimeis will sue for mercy. Mephibosheths will be justified and Barzillais rewarded. What are we doing as individuals to secure the return of the King? Compare 2Sa 19:10 with 2Pe 3:12. But have we brought the King back to His throne in our own hearts!<\/p>\n strife: Gen 3:12, Gen 3:13, Exo 32:24, Jam 3:14-16 <\/p>\n The king: 2Sa 8:10, 1Sa 17:50, 1Sa 18:5-7, 1Sa 18:25, 1Sa 19:5 <\/p>\n he is fled: 2Sa 15:14 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Sa 19:20 – Joseph 2Sa 19:43 – our advice 2Sa 22:44 – delivered Ecc 4:16 – they also<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:9-10. All the people were at strife throughout all the tribes Either, 1st, Striving who should be most forward to bring back the king, and blaming one anothers slackness in the business: or, 2d, Censuring and quarrelling one with another, as the authors and abetters of this shameful rebellion, and discoursing privately and publicly of Davids high merits, which God, being now reconciled to him, brings afresh to their memories. Now, therefore, why speak ye not a word, &c. The people of Israel speak thus to their elders, as appears by comparing this verse with the next. Seeing their designs for raising Absalom to the throne disappointed, they now repented of that undertaking, and were willing to testify this by their forwardness to bring David back, and re-establish him.<\/p>\n 19:9 And all the people were at {d} strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom.<\/p>\n (d) Everyone blamed another and strove who should first bring him home.<\/p>\n David’s return to Jerusalem 19:9-43<\/span><\/p>\n The only thing the people could do after Absalom had fallen was to return to their former king (2Sa 19:11-12). Absalom had found his strongest support among the people of Judah. David did not want the Judahites to conclude that by supporting Absalom they had become his enemies. David extended pardon to them and informed them that he still regarded them as his closest kin. This wise political move helped unite the nation again.<\/p>\n ". . . David’s reference here [2Sa 19:12] is not to blood ties, though they may be present, but rather that mutual covenant commitments must be honored because the vows assume fidelity through thick and thin." [Note: Walter Brueggemann, "Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Genesis 2, 23 a)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32:4 (September 1970):536.] <\/span><\/p>\n David also forgave the Benjamites who had hoped for his downfall and had seen it as punishment for taking Saul’s place on the throne (2Sa 19:16-30). Shimei had actively opposed David, Ziba had misled him (apparently), and Mephibosheth had not supported him. Mephibosheth’s failure to trim his toenails and his beard and to wash his clothes, were an expression of his grief, and resulted in his remaining ceremonially unclean while David was in exile (cf. Exo 19:10; Exo 19:14). [Note: Cf. McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 417, 421.] <\/span> By forgiving all of these Benjamites David again secured the support of this difficult tribe. Later, David urged Solomon to execute Shimei (1Ki 2:8-9; cf. Gen 12:3). A generation later, when the kingdom split in two, the tribe of Benjamin remained attached to Judah. Abishai had become an "adversary" (Heb. satan<\/span>) to David in the sense that he opposed David’s purpose to pardon Shimei. [Note: See Peggy Day, "Abishai and satan in 2 Samuel 19:17-24," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49:4 (October 1987):543-47.] <\/span><\/p>\n David may have divided the fields between Mephibosheth and Ziba to determine which of them was telling the truth or because he could not tell (2Sa 19:29). Solomon followed a similar procedure and threatened to divide a living baby to determine which of two mothers was telling the truth (1Ki 3:24-25). Mephibosheth offered the entire estate to Ziba (2Sa 19:30). His action argued his innocence. [Note: David Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature, p. 247.] <\/span><\/p>\n Barzillai’s support (2Sa 19:31-39) undoubtedly represented that of others in Transjordan. By honoring him and his representative, Chimham, David cemented good relations with the tribes across the Jordan. Chimham may have been Barzillai’s son (cf. 1Ki 2:7), a tradition that some manuscripts of the Septuagint preserved.<\/p>\n The other Israelites (2Sa 19:40-43) also rallied behind David again. The little "who loves the king most" contest they held with the Judahites illustrates their support. Thus almost the whole nation again united behind the Lord’s anointed. This was a blessing from God. The chiastic literary structure of chapters 15-20 identifies an undercurrent of deterioration in the general relations that David enjoyed with his subjects at this time. [Note: David M. Gunn, "From Jerusalem to the Jordan and Back: Symmetry in 2 Samuel XV-XX," Vetus Testamentum 30:1 (January 1980):109-13.] <\/span><\/p>\n This section is a remarkable testimony to the power of forgiveness (cf. Mat 6:12; Mat 6:14-15; Mat 18:21-22; Luk 7:47; Luk 17:3). David had not really forgiven Absalom, and perhaps the consequences of his lack of forgiveness encouraged him to take a different approach with his subjects after Absalom’s death. We see in David’s dealings with Amasa (2Sa 19:11-15) that forgiveness wins over former enemies. We see in his dealings with Shimei (2Sa 19:16-23) that forgiveness gives time for people to change. We see in his treatment of Mephibosheth and Ziba (2Sa 19:24-30) that forgiveness placates irreconcilable adversaries. We see in his relations with Barzillai and Chimham (2Sa 19:31-39) that forgiveness causes blessing to overflow on others. We see in the section revealing the final reactions of the Israelites and the Judahites (2Sa 19:40-43) that forgiveness lays a strong foundation for the future.<\/p>\n "The recent victory may have been seen as indicative of Yahweh’s favor, but David still needed the people’s ’acclamation’ or invitation to be king once more." [Note: Anderson, p. 242.] <\/span><\/p>\n And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom. All the people were at strife; quarrelling one … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 19:9”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
10 And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now therefore why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back?
11 And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"